Don't make performances secret this time

[Furio]

Originally posted by PE_thi
It is true , too, that a plane at 400 km/h experiences four times the drag of a plane with 200 km/h. I simply ilustrated the point of the drag difference between two planes.
Let's make a small calculation of the power needed to lift the plane at certain speed thru the air.
Let's say I16 climbs at 15 m/s , and has a mass of 2000 kg; that makes it's weight approx. 20 000 N. Power used to lift the plane at the speed given is then 15m/s*20 000N= 300 000 W=300KW = (approx.) 300*1.3HP=400HP.
This is the so called Excess Power, which remains after the power needed to overcome all the other resistances has been deducted from the power available, in this case 930 HP.
That means even at 200 Km/h, 530 HP is absorbed by the parasite and (much less) induced drag of the I16. That explains , now, why 109F is such a good climber , with it's clean aerodynamic, and the stubby I16 less so, in spite of a very good power to weight.


In my opinion, your calculation of drag should be revised a little, at least taking in account the drag produced by engine cooling, which is significant for piston engines. If really an I16 required 530 hp to just overcome its own parasite drag at 200 km/h, it would have been an airbrake, not an airplane, and I think it would have been incapable to reach 463 km/h top speed with the remaining 400 hp.
Anyway, I think we have bored enough everyone with math, so I stop here and leave you the last word.
We agree, I think, on the most important thing: all planes are more or less over modelled in game. But I see the solution in a general downgrading of speed and climb rates, not in the contrary. All this said, IL2 remains by far the best sim around, and I’m sure SOW will be the best for years to come. And people will continue to complain asking for more performance for their favourite plane.

P39 suffered because of its quite bad altitude performance- engine has been made for the low level work only, due to the political circumstances in the US before the war.

As for the Airacobra, in my opinion the real problem was not in performances at altitude. For what I know, air combat in the Pacific took place at altitudes generally comparable to Eastern Front: low to medium. American pilots were certainly as good as Russian ones, and Germans as good as Japanese. So, where it was the difference? In tactics, I think. Russians found the best tactics for a basically good machine. Accordingly to my sources, the P39 was at least 46 km/h slower than an FW190.